1 - 10 Next
A twist on the 'cash for clunkers' program?
I am campaigned out. Now is the time for 'what' not 'who'. Republicans need to present a consistent, cogent and conservative agenda and then choose whoever is the most electable candidate to implement it.
The irony is that in an effort to draw attention to an issue that are trying to legitimize, these rioters seize an opportunity to protest an incident in which it played no part. In doing so they miss the relevant lessons. Everyone, including the prosecutor and our President, is lecturing us on 'the lessons we need to learn' from this incident to change things so this does not happen again. The President told us that there is 'deep distrust' between the police and 'communities of color'. Strangely, none of them even mention the two biggest lessons to be learned from this incident. How about a little 'root cause analysis'? (1.) Don't rob stores. (2.) When encountering the police, don't initiate violence by attacking them. That is not to diminish the extent to which what the President said may have some validity but Michael Browns encounter with the police was because he robbed a store, not because he was black. Had he not done so, that encounter with the police, problematic or not, would not have happened. Neither was he shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked the police during the encounter his action precipitated. Had he not done that he would just be in jail rather than the morgue. Had the race of either or both participants been reversed, it would not have transpired differently. If you are going to protest racism, which admittedly there is reason to do, your case would be greatly enhanced if you did so, not just peacefully, but in reaction to an occasion in which race actually played a roll so that the particulars of the incident have some bearing on the issue at hand. It may also be useful to consider the extent to which false allegations of racism and support of them, worsen rather than improve the situation. The question is do you want to resolve the problem or do you just want to vent your feelings about it and proclaim your righteousness in a way that makes it worse not better.
In response to:

An Inconvenient Law

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: 5 hours ago (8:56 AM)
All of which is why I keep.posting versions of this: The question that must now be answered, independent of political party affiliation, is; 'given this executive action by President Obama and all of the past executive actions taken by Presidents, just how is it to be determined what a President can and cannot do with future executive actions'? What are the guidelines? What are the limits? Are there any? What is the criteria? Where are any of them codified? How is any form of consistency and predictability to be achieved? Unless and until that is done the default will be, as it has been this time around, whether or not one approves of what the President is doing and/or whether or not one approves of the President who is doing it. The Constitution is then moot because the President can do whatever a sufficiently large and loud segment of the population want him to do. Worse, there is no acceptable way to determine if that unquantified criteria has been met nor is there any recourse even if it is not. Not even the Supremes Court, which is already far too politicized, would suffice as it would have no Constitutional foundation on which to base its ruling. It would be left to do so on the same arbitrary criteria of personal approval or disapproval of what is being done and who is doing it. It is all tantamount to dispensing with the Constitution and replacing it with a single rule which decrees that there are no rules except those that are made up as we go along by those with enough influence to make it stick. That is not a living Constitution. It is a dead Constitution. I cannot believe that intelligent people on both sides do not realize the folly of seeking short term, single issue, political gain by abusing rather than resolving this lack of specificity in constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law that has and will come back to bite them. Either side has an opportunity here to rise above the fray and deport themselves as statesmen rather than politicians by focusing on the larger issue. If not for honor and integrity they might consider that doing so just may benefit them politically.
Perhaps too long but it is no more heavy handed than the constant litany of Democrat 'Republicans have cooties' rhetoric to which we are subjected. At least it addresses things he actual did and not moral judgments of 'mean-spirited', 'uncaring', 'push old ladies in wheelchairs over the cliff', 'let poor people starve' we get from the moral relativity crowd. Perhaps we are just so used to it and so used to our response just being 'no we aren't' that anything other than defense strikes us as too harsh.
In response to:

Time to Stop the Moderator Masochism

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: 22 hours ago (4:14 PM)
The 2016 elections will just be a continuation of the Democrats adolescent 'Republicans have cooties' strategy. Let us hope that the 2014 results demonstrate that the voting public has matured beyond it.
That will show whitey and Officer Darren Wilson. Justice for Michael Brown!
Focusing only on Professor Gruber's arrogance, we ignore the more important revelation as to what the Democrats and the Obama administration did..
In response to:

The Real Lessons of Ferguson

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Nov 26, 2014 9:47 AM
Those certainly are lessons to be learned regarding what the protesters are protesting. But in an effort to draw attention to an issue that are trying to legitimize, these rioters seize an opportunity to protest an incident in which it played no part. Everyone, including the prosecutor and our President, is lecturing us on 'the lessons we need to learn' from this incident to change things so this does not happen again. The President told us that there is 'distrust between the police and communities of color'. Strangely, none of them even mention the two biggest lessons to be learned from this incident. How about a little 'root cause analysis'? (1.) Don't rob stores. (2.) When encountering the police, don't initiate violence by attacking them. That is not to diminish the extent to which what the President said may have some validity but Michael Browns encounter with the police was because he robbed a store, not because he was black. Had he not done so, that encounter with the police, problematic or not, would not have happened. Neither was he shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked the police during the encounter his action precipitated. Had he not done that he would have only been justifiably arrested rather than shot to death. Had the race of either or both participants been reversed, it would not have transpired differently. If you are going to protest racism, which admittedly there is reason to do, your case would be greatly enhanced if you did so, not just peacefully, but in reaction to an occasion in which race actually played a roll so that the particulars of the incident have some bearing on the issue at hand. It may also be useful to consider the extent to which false allegations of racism and support of them, worsen rather than improve the situation. The question is do you want to resolve the problem or do you just want to vent your feelings about it and proclaim your righteousness in a way that makes it worse not better.
Worse yet, he devotes not a single word to the two most appropriate and productive lessons to be learned from this incident. Lessons that might actually change things so this does not happen again. The President told us that there is 'deep distrust between the police and communities of color'. but did not point out that if you don't rob stores you do not precipitate an encounter with the police, problematic or not and if you do not initiate violence during encounters with the police you are less likely to be injured or killed as a consequence. Had the race of either or both participants been reversed, it would not have transpired differently. If you are going to protest racism, which admittedly there is reason to do, your case would be greatly enhanced if you did so, not just peacefully, but in reaction to an occasion in which race actually played a roll so that the particulars of the incident have some bearing on the issue at hand. It may also be useful to consider the extent to which false allegations of racism and support of them, worsen rather than improve the situation. The question is do you want to resolve the problem or do you just want to vent your feelings about it and proclaim your righteousness in a way that makes it worse not better.
1 - 10 Next